Search in:

Larry Graham: time to die should be a personal choice

Larry Graham

Surely a person's right to live or die is something for them to decide?

As I sat with another family member who was dying I mused about our civilization, its ethics, its judgement and more importantly how little it values human beings.

The family member - my brother-in-law - was a truly wonderful man. No one who ever met him had a bad word to say about him, because he was gentle, caring, considerate man and a fantastic member of our family.

Two years ago he was diagnosed with a cancer and given a short time to live. He simply did not accept the verdict and set about trying to beat it. His enormous positivity allowed him to have extra time with us and we all valued it greatly.

It sounds very pompous to put it like that, except for the fact that the extra time we had with him really was of great value to him and us all.

Advertisement

Having watched my father die and sat with my wife while she died of cancer, it is obvious to me that we should not treat humans like this. On each occasion the person in question had no strong religious beliefs and as their time approached they knew there was no chance of survival.

In each case I have found myself thinking that I could put my hand over the person’s mouth and nose and end it for them - and the urge to help them out was so strong that I found my hands trembling.

Both my wife and my brother in law would have thanked me had I done it. Unless one has experienced it, it is hard to explain the feelings. Your love for the person eats into you and you get torn apart by the conflicting feelings of hoping that they will survive and the grim realisation that they won’t.

That I could not help either of these people in their time of most need left me feeling empty, angry and bitter because I knew both of them wanted it done.

Doctors and medicos do a great job in relieving the suffering and pain and I have great compassion for them also. Their task is monumental and every one of them I have met in these circumstances has been an inspirational, caring professional person. I could not do their job and have nothing but admiration for them.

The physical pain is now manageable, but it is the personal, psychological and emotional damage that remains. Any human who put an animal through the suffering of a human dying like this would have the RSPCA chasing them down and prosecuting them.

It is quite proper that this should be so, but why, oh why, do we not have the same concern for humans?

Surely humans have the right to die with some sort of dignity? There simply has to be a better way, and I do not want people I love to have to go through this when my time comes.

There are many complex ethical issues that really do need addressing. We cannot have death for the convenience of others.

But as there is no one suggesting that this be so, I am at a loss to understand why this is very quickly where the debate on these matters goes and this is where it usually ends.

I have written previously that not pursuing this issue when I was an MP still haunts me. It is a miserable defence, but I was a single father with a young family to raise and a job to do.

Having said that, I still cannot fathom why is it that our political system refuses to make the necessary changes to allow us to die when we are ready? It becomes more confusing when we consider that almost every poll says the public want this change to happen.

That our laws have not changed continues to drive unfortunate and controversial deaths.

The AMA and Jeff Kennett have joined the caterwauling about the latest controversy. It again involves Phillip Nitschke, someone wanting to die and finally finding a way to do it.

Once again we have to listen to good caring do-gooders tell us the reasons why people should not be allowed to die at a time of their choosing.

I don’t get it. If a person wants to die, why should medical ethics, God, churches or gutless pollies be able to prevent it?Why is Jeff Kennett’s or the churches’ view considered more important than the person who has to live the life?

All people want is some dignity for dying people that we love, time to grieve for them and space to reflect on their lives.

How did these organisations gain the right to rob people of their final dignity and put family and friends through this torture?

How dare these people and organisations impose their religious and ethical views on us?

How dare they be so bloody selfish?

How dare these people take all that away and condemn people to lonely suicides and leave their friends and family with little but anger and frustration?

15 comments

Strong emotive argument. Your pain is real. However, we don't treat people like animals because they aren't, so arguments based around that aren't valid. If you think there is no significant difference, then that opens up a plethora of other issues which further cloud the issue. The recent Nitschke story demonstrates the slippery slope - what was a debate limited to terminal illness and choices has broadened into individual decisons about the quality of life at any age or with no physical illness at all. This raises the issue of mental competence even more starkly. How can a Govt legislate with 100% surety on this isse? How can it, through legislation, ensure that those who don't want to die are protected? There will always be errors, only errors in this amount to murder. What is the acceptable error rate? Or do we just through money at the families of those who's loved one was killed accidentally? Unlike a capital crime, there can be no appeal.

Commenter

Joel

Location

Canberra

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 8:09AM

Joel - you say we don't treat humans like animals because we aren't, yet you then go on to treat humans as a statistical tool, measurable by legislation. That's not a slippery slope, that's a red herring. Philosophy 101.

Commenter

treechange

Location

Perth

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 1:20PM

Treechange - I merely dispose of one argument - that of equating animal management with people, and then attempt to provide a secular reason against euthanasia. If you read my comment, you'll see one is distinct from the other - philosophy 101 my friend. The points, however, remain. We are not simply animals, and there is a real risk that someone will be killed who doesn't want to be.

Commenter

Joel

Location

Canberra

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 3:14PM

So are people are not animals, are they vegetable or mineral?

As for your argument that voluntary euthansia "cannot" ever work, what about the places where it is available and does work?

But I do agree that the case of the depressed 40-whater year old set this very noble cause back significantly, I also believe it should only be available in cases of verfied terminal illnesses, with checks in place to make sure nobody is forced or coerced. I believe it is possible, sure, nothing is ever perfect, however I think VE would deliver more good than bad.

Thanks for the article Paul.

Commenter

Walo

Location

Perth

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 3:55PM

Joel, people are killed who don't want to be every day of the week. It's a part of life! If society denies a person's right to die because there is a remote possibility of coercion or abuse, then we may as well deny a person's right to drive a car, drink wine, fall in love... in other words we shouldn't be allowed to live because everything in this world carries risk.

The whole point of euthanasia is self empowerment. My life. My decision. The reason this is a contentious issue is because the right to self determination is innate in each of us, and to strip that fundamental right away goes against all that we are - individuals born with free will. The right to self determination is not, and will never be, comparable to a 'right' to drive a car or vote in an election. You can't legislate for a person's right to breathe.

Your argument is not secular, it's cultural. And it's not about the individual, it's about the 'norm'. Culture evolves and changes, and in time, this prevailing norm will change too.

Commenter

treechange

Location

perth

Date and time

July 08, 2014, 8:27AM

I want euthanasia. Not for people with depression. Because i feel deep in my bones that it is WRONG to help someone with depression to die, when many many people make it "through" this sad affliction to live happy and fulfilling lives. Your attitude begs the question, why are we bothering to prevent suicide? Its chilling. I have a loved one that committed suicide. The thought of someone HELPING her with that when she desperately needed psychiatric help chills me.

Commenter

Lou

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 8:32AM

Larry I dont offen agree with you, but on this I have to say we are on the same wave length exactly. How dare they! Not for the first time in my life I have a friend dying, who is in terrible pain and wants to choose when they have had enough. Who are we to say no?

Commenter

Dtails

Location

Perth

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 9:07AM

This must be one of the most emotive subjects around. A recent example of the elderly couple in Albany who chose to go together due to failing health and sickness being forced to go to extreme measures to do so, because they couldnt legally obtain the assistance they chased to end their life together. Why do we feel the need to force our sick and dying relatives and friends to endure a life of torment and suffering? It surely isn't for them, being fed, changed and knowing what they have lost. Really, what quality of life do some of these people have to endure because we cant let them go...Medical intervention has come a long way, however, there must come a point where a sick person should have the right to say enough is enough, let me go with dignity to end the pain and suffering. Many of these people can see the anguish on their loved ones faces who are caring for them or visiting them in a hospital or home. As well as the nurses who end up caring for them too. The emotional toll on these people must be immense. It's time we stood up and gave this issue the open and frank discussion it deserves.

Commenter

believer_let_them_go!

Location

Perth

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 9:49AM

You're spot on Larry,It would be a much better world if each of us took absolute responsibility for our own choices, rather than imposing our will onto others. To suggest that it's OK to end my life, but only on someone else's terms (terminal illness OK, but physically healthy not OK), is still an extension of the same meddling in others' lives.

Some people decide, for reasons we can't begin to know or understand, that they don't want to stick around - so who are we to force them to endure a life they don't want? We are, in effect, attempting to play God with people, by insisting they soldier on when they just don't want to. And then, to show our 'humanity', we say well, OK, you can die because you're old and terminally ill... or you can die in utero because you're terribly deformed... or you can die because you've committed a capital offence. But everyone else has to stay, like it or not!

The religious teachings that insist that God only loves you if you suffer, have no place in a modern society, and yet this archaic cultural attitude prevails across all the great religions into our societies. I totally support Dr Nitschke - he has more respect for the dignity of a person and our innate right to decide our own fate than all of our political and religious leaders. One day people will look back on this ridiculous debate and see Dr Nitschke for what he is - a great humanitarian.

Commenter

treechange

Location

Perth

Date and time

July 07, 2014, 10:18AM

After watching my brother in law die an agonizing death from asbestos linked cancer being a builder for 35 years he was hospitalised for 3 months and the best the doctors could do was to increase the morphine dose till in the end he was like a zombie and ask to have en end to it all to no avail just more morphine treatment might have change this was in 1991 It is time that politicians cared more about caring for people not will I keep my seat at the next election and the churches become more engaged with their flock and ask what they think nothing will change for me personally if I am that sick and no longer able to function as a human can I do not want to be a burden to my family and they agree with thisBut till there is a positive approach taken from the churches governments people are forced to break the laws and find away to die with dignity